Originally posted by ZeusAV:

---

But. . .But HDDVD still hasn't lost yet.

---

Originally posted by ZeusAV:

---

But. . .But HDDVD still hasn't lost yet.

---

Quote:

---

NPD clarifies Blu-ray's market share the week after Warner went Blu
Posted Jan 25th 2008 10:35AM by Ben Drawbaugh
Filed under: Industry, Blu-ray, HD DVD

Some were very quick to crown Blu-ray the winner when we learned that the Blu-ray player owned 93 percent of the HD movie market the week after Warner went Blu.

Evidently the numbers were leaked and the NPD group was quick to respond in an attempt to clear things up. As expected, some we're just as quick to discount the Blu-ray success -- which is just as silly as saying the numbers alone mean Blu-ray has won.

Two things happened that week that we're not so sure could continue forever; HD DVD sales were down, and Blu-ray sales were up.

With some help from a a few promotions (free player with a new TV) -- stand-alone Blu-ray player sales were up 30 percent (22k, up from 15k) -- but this alone wasn't enough to shift HD DVD share from 40 percent down to 7.

HD DVD only sold 1,758 stand-alone players during the same week, compared to 14,558 the week before.
So while Blu-ray was up 30, HD DVD was down 88 percent.

So it isn't that the Blu-ray sales were all that spectacular, but instead it was that HD DVD sales were way down.

At this point it doesn't mean anything, but if it continues for more than a month then that's whole another story entirely.

---

Originally posted by FlakMNKEY:

---

It's sad clearly the superior format is losing this fight. Wish sony fan boy would wake up and realize this.

---

Originally posted by hughjars:

---

The truth is that Blu-ray does not even have 1% of the total movie disc market so it's ruidiculous to say it has won anything.
Clearly the high def market is tiny and immature.

---

Originally posted by relaxin:

---

So why the zealous nature of praising one format over the other?

---

Originally posted by hughjars:

---

.....oh, and let's not forget that that is 21,000 Sony, Sharp & Panasonic 'profile 1.0' player owners set to be disappointed when the 'profile 2.0' discs arrive.

---

Originally posted by hughjars:

---

Not only are the HD A3, HD A30 & HD A35 all in the Amazon USA best selling DVD listings (the HD A3 is at number 2, the HD A30 at number 3 & the HD A35 at number 8 today - the best selling Blu-ray player is at number 9

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxin:

---

So why the zealous nature of praising one format over the other?

---

I made a $600 purchase of a PS3 is why for me...

---

Quote:

---

Why are so many of the posters on AfterDawn HD-DVD fanboys?

---

Quote:

---

were expected to work "off the shelf" and didn't require frequent "firmware updates" to do so. With the new generation of Blu-ray video players, however, this is the norm: firmware updates are to be expected because the players are constantly evolving and are built around a DRM scheme (AACS) that can be "updated" in the event that a hack is found. Blu-ray goes one step further and adds another layer of anti-copy technology known as BD+, but the latter is only now starting to be used. As it turns out, it appears that it's causing problems for many honest customers.
Case in point: two new Blu-ray titles that have just been released?Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer and The Day After Tomorrow. Both of these titles have been reported to exhibit various degrees of failure on some Blu-ray players. Some refuse to play until after an interminable two-minute delay, others skip randomly making watching the movie futile, and then there is this gem:
So what is the issue with these titles? Both make use of advanced features that utilize BD-J, the Java virtual machine that is part of the Blu-ray spec. Silver Surfer uses BD-J to add a more dubious "feature"?the BD+ copy protection that is layered on top of Blu-ray discs' existing AACS copy protection. While some have claimed that it is BD-J that is at fault and not BD+, the latter requires the former to operate (it runs in a Java virtual machine), and a quick perusal of what BD+ actually does indicates that it is quite likely the culprit. BD+ is being rushed out to titles only shortly after the spec was finalized, partly in response to hackers cracking the protection on AACS earlier this year. This wouldn't be the first time that extra layers of copy protection have harmed legitimate consumers: earlier this year Sony had to recall 20 DVD titles protected with ARccOS that caused problems on some DVD players.

---

Originally posted by hyperlink:

---

But all software-based copy-protection schemes can be broken. The only way a DRM can really work is to control all of the hardware the video data flow through, including the monitor. The problem is that at some point an unencrypted video signal is sent to a display device. It can be split off before it gets there or videotaped once it's on the screen.

The AACS (Advanced Access Content System) standard supported by both the Sony and Microsoft camps addresses this problem. The standard calls for scaling down HD content to a low resolution if the player isn't hooked up to an HDCP-compliant connection. HDCP (High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection) is a DRM system invented by Intel (INTC) that attempts to control video and audio as it flows out of a player and onto a display. In other words, if the player is connected to a monitor without the right cables, the quality of the image will be deliberately degraded.

Blu-ray, however, goes beyond the AACS, incorporating two other protection mechanisms: The ROM Mark is a cryptographic element overlaid on a "legitimate" disk. If the player doesn't detect the mark, then it won't play the disc. This will supposedly deal with video-camera-in-the-theatre copies.
STRANGLEHOLD ON CONTENT.

Even more extreme is a scheme called BD+ that deals with the problem of what to do when someone cracks the encryption scheme. The players can automatically download new crypto if the old one is broken. But there's an ominous feature buried in this so-called protection mechanism: If a particular brand of player is cryptographically "compromised," the studio can remotely disable all of the affected players. In other words, if some hacker halfway across the globe cracks Sony's software, Sony can shut down my DVD player across the Net.

The Blu-ray's DRM scheme is simply anti-consumer. The standard reflects what the studios really want, which is no copying of their material at all, for any reason. They're clearly willing to take active and unpleasant measures to enforce this. Last year's Sony/BMG rootkit fiasco comes to mind (see BW Online, 11/29/05, "Sony BMG's Costly Silence"). The possibility that they would disable thousands of DVD players, not because they're hacked but just because they might be vulnerable, would have been unthinkable a few years ago; it's clearly an option today.

---